Grade whether a summary is grounded in its source document (0–1) with each unsupported claim itemized — usable directly as an LLM judge in evals and as a runtime hallucination gate.
Grade whether a summary is grounded in its source document: a score (0–1) plus an itemized list of every claim the document doesn't support. Groundedness only — omissions, ordering, and style don't move the score. A summary that covers half the document but invents nothing scores 1.0; a beautiful summary with one fabricated number scores below 0.5.
This prompt is the eval judge for the Summarization Essentials collection — the evals on document-summary, meeting-notes-summary, email-thread-summary, and headline-generation gate on judge.grounded.score > 0.8. Use it the same way in your own evals, or as a runtime hallucination gate before showing users a machine-written summary.
| Entrypoint | Renders | Inputs |
|---|---|---|
system | Grading rubric + embedded output schema | — |
user | Delimited document + summary blocks | document, summary |
Render system as the system message and user as the user message.
document (string, required) — the source text.summary (string, required) — the candidate summary to grade.{
"reasoning": "Three of four claims trace to the document; the '40% faster' figure appears nowhere in it.",
"score": 0.3,
"hallucinated_claims": ["the new engine is 40% faster"]
}
score > 0.8 is a usable boolean gate.additionalProperties: false; the claims list is never padded.Part of the Summarization Essentials collection.